So we keep the goliath because a narrow constituency might be inconvenienced. What about people trying to do estate planning? They have a one year window to die in 2011 or else they must spend a lot of money on life insurance, trusts, etc. We're worried about planning now?
The average retirement savings for baby boomers is about 18,000. You're worried about someone who might have 55,000 instead of 60,000 to spend in retirement, assuming every thing they buy is brand new, when there are benefits of the fair tax that would make the playing field level for tens of millions of people.
What would you do? What is your plan? Do we keep the system we have? Do we use a flat tax?
I don't really see it that way at all.
Do you honestly believe that? The current system is relatively fair? If you believe that you are not one to be debated but rather suspected.
Dear groanup,
Narrow constituency?
LOL. Even the folks WITHOUT the three quarters of a mil lost nearly 8% of their purchasing power.
You're talking about millions of senior citizens. LOL. "narrow constituency."
"They have a one year window to die in 2011 or else they must spend a lot of money on life insurance, trusts, etc. We're worried about planning now?"
I don't like that either. That's why I'm fighting to make the President's tax reductions permanent.
"...when there are benefits of the fair tax that would make the playing field level for tens of millions of people."
Frankly, I don't see it as "leveling the playing field."
In my view, the people who are rewarded the most by the NSRT are folks with few children, are renters, are folks who don't take advantage of things like qualified defined contribution plans, are folks with minimal savings, are folks with minimal equities and other financial assets, who haven't bothered to try to get jobs with good health insurance.
And the very rich.
In my view, it punishes most middle class folks who've had kids, who've purchased their own homes, are folks who make sure they max their retirement accounts and get every penny form their employers in matching funds, who will take less pay to get better health insurance, who have taken care to accumulate some savings, some other financial assets, etc.
"What would you do? What is your plan? Do we keep the system we have? Do we use a flat tax?"
Well, to me, changing taxation systems when the federal govt controls 20% of GDP is like rearranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic. Kind of a waste of energy. In this case, possibly a very disruptive waste of energy.
You gotta knock back how much of the economy runs through the govt's fingers.
I'd start with gradual Social Security privatization, moving over the course of several decades (can't do it faster) to complete privatization.
Of course, to do that would force Congress to cut the budget in other areas, in that they couldn't paper over how Social Security surpluses are currently being frittered away.
But once we did that, we'd take something like 6% - 7% of GDP away from the government and put it directly in the hands of individuals. Good start.
Even better, the money that individuals and companies now spend on qualified defined contribution retirement accounts would become redundant, at least for folks satisfied with a comfortable retirement.
Talk about saving "embedded costs."
"Do you honestly believe that? The current system is relatively fair? If you believe that you are not one to be debated but rather suspected."
Well, it depends on what you compare it to. To the possible havoc and chaos of a complete turning upside down of 100% of our federal tax laws might cause?
Yeah.
sitetest